Case Study: Citynet, LLC

Issue: The issue in the case problem 12-7 is between Ray Toney, an employee, and Citynet, LLC, the employer. Citynet had promised their employees that if they left they could cash out their entire vested balance (Miller, 2015, pp. 303). When Toney terminated his employment with Citynet he asked for his vested balance but they refused to provide all the money to him (Miller, 2015, pp. 303). Because of this Toney filed a suit against them stating they had breached the contract. Rule of Law: The rule of law that can be applied towards this case can be the unilateral contract rule and the consideration rule. An unilateral contract is a contract that is formed until one of the party performs. Basically there is no contract without a performance
They had promised the vested balance and the employees had to perform by staying on the company working for a little longer. Whenever the employees had performed they had already done their side of the contract and in return the company must provide the balance. In the unilateral contract, the promisor (the company) is bound to the contract when the promisee (employees) perform. In this case, Toney had performed so Citynet must respond. The consideration rule can also be applied in this case. There are certain elements that the party must meet to be able to use this rule. The first element is a promise to do something that they have no legal duty to actually do (Miller, 2015, pp. 291-292). In this case problem, Toney had no legal duty on staying in the company if he did not want to. The second element is to perform an action that we are not obligated to undertake (Miller, 2015, pp. 291-292). In this case, Toney had no obligation on continue doing the tasks of his job if he decided not to continue. And the third element is the refraining from an action that someone has the legal right to undertake (Miller, 2015, pp. 291-292). Toney had the right to leave the company but was refrained because he wanted to obtain his vested